Hard News: That Buzzing Sound
757 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 26 27 28 29 30 31 Newer→ Last
-
I took Giovanni's point to be that anyone that commits suicide has mental health issues, which seemed fairly straightforward to me.
Yes, thank you.
-
Peter Verschaffelt's meth manufacture charge
Who? Wikipedia says he's a Flemish sculptor, which can't be right..
-
My apologies for turning this conversation back to genetic engineering, but this is the first chance I've had to respond.
Bart rephrased what I said as
If I can be forgiven for simplifying what you are saying is,
We don't know what we don't know.
And from that you are saying it may be dangerous so we shouldn't do it.What I said originally was:
The risks that are posed by the introduction of species that have entirely new gene sequences - and the implications of that vertical transmission - are not yet understood by anyone Bart, certainly not by those who work in the sole field of biotechnology.
You completely misunderstood what I wrote.
Far from saying "it may be dangerous and we shouldn't do it" I am very much in support of use of GM technology in medicine and the pursuit of GM science. What I object to is the lack of independent scientific research in GM. Companies like Monsanto using the word "science" when they really mean "technology" or "industry".
Of course there is consultation among researchers from various fields - and the message from every discipline - epigenetics, bioinformatics, epidemiology just to name three of the literally dozens of different disciplines that have concerns about GM - the message is "caution."
Molecular biology was a new, and single discipline in the 1950s. Now the field encompasses more than a dozen different specific disciplines - from computational molecular biology to bioinformatics. There is no kind of consultation that can make accurate predictions about anything. That's why we have computational molecular biologists and data mining - to give us probabilities .
Not predictions, you'll note.From just such a meeting:
"Kurland also chaired the last session entitled "Biotechnology, bio-industry, and bio-business". He introduced the subject by saying that the good, old fashioned "bottom up" planning and peer review in science was being replaced by "top down" control from government and industries. He called the new situation "command research" and deplored how science was now valued in political circles primarily as a means of accumulating wealth. Gone are the days of scientists being driven by pure desire to understand nature. Such lofty ideals are now regarded as naïve expressions of "mere curiousity", with no practical application. These comments were followed by two talks offering the industrial perspective. Friedrich von Bohlen described how the European biotech industry is lagging behind the US, and the necessity for competition, emphasizing that the only way for small companies in Europe to survive was to make deals and collaborations with bigger companies. His own company, LION Bioscence, Heidelberg, has already made fruitful alliances with Bayer and Celera. Manfred Kern, from Aventis CropScience, took up the issue of the world food situation with the question "How can we feed everyone and keep human dignity?" He went on to explain how biotech companies were concerned with increasing the food security margin for the future. At the moment, only 0.26% more food is being produced than is required on a global scale. He announced that companies now have the technology to support world food security and stressed the importance of keeping up with food demand as the world population increases. He also stated firmly that food distribution was not the concern of biotech companies. It was a little strange, in that case, that he opened his lecture with the question "how can we feed everyone". With 24,000 people dying of hunger every day in spite of the food security margin, world hunger is clearly a problem of distribution not production. To suggest that biotech companies will feed the world when they state categorically that food distribution is not their concern, was very misleading."
"The final talk in this section was from Julian Davies and was entitled "Antibiotics for the 21st Century". Davies highlighted the desperate problem of acquired antibiotic resistance in bacteria due to their overuse. He presented this as an illustration of what happens when society adopts a potentially beneficial discovery with cavalier enthusiasm, without realizing that there may be unforeseen repercussions. In this case, bacteria responded to the millions of metric tons of antibiotics that were thrown into the biosphere by becoming resistant to them. The situation is now irreversible because as well as gaining genetic information for antibiotic resistance, bacteria acquired compensatory genes which stabilized their new phenotypes. I asked Davies if he thought the removal of all antibiotics could change the current situation and he replied that certain experiments with Klebsiella showed that, though resistance would decrease, it would still remain at a higher level than before. What a marvellous example of natural selection due to human activity! In fact already in 1946, Alexander Fleming warned that we should be careful not to overuse antibiotics because of the possibility of acquired resistance but no one could have predicted either its extent nor its stability in the year 2000. It makes one wonder what the comparable consequences of the introduction of GMOs might be?"
We don't know what effect GM will have in generations to come. Look at the field of epigenetics. Could anyone have anticipated Prof. Barker's discovery that a person's maternal grandmother directly affects the health of descendants? It would have been dismissed as Lamarkian nonsense a generation ago, but there it is, as real as can be. It is the nature of science that we learn new things, and part of that progress involves unlearning what we once accepted as unassailable fact. GM has not been around long enough for us to predict the effects, much less assess them. -
I've no intention of retailing very unpleasant goss I've heard about the circumstances of Trevor Mallard's divorce. He's in public office -- is a senior Labour Party strategist, shadow leader of the House, was recently restored to the front bench (as education spokesman), and if it wasn't for his biffo with Tau would probably be the favourite for Finance Minister in the next Labour-lead government.
Craig, I am unaware of Mallard ever pontificating about traditional family values. That's where Rankin's hypocrisy lies, which has nothing to do with merely being in public office.
-
Craig, I am unaware of Mallard ever pontificating about traditional family values. That's where Rankin's hypocrisy lies, which has nothing to do with merely being in public office.
Yes, my view of the hypocrisy element relates wholly to her and her organisation's rhetoric in the media over the past few years, rather than the Families Commission job. I just think she'd be crap at that.
I'll just duck for cover now.
-
dyan - epigenetics is highly controversial, unproven - indeed contested -work. It is not yet scientifically proven.
-
Yes, my view of the hypocrisy element relates wholly to her and her organisation's rhetoric in the media over the past few years, rather than the Families Commission job. I just think she'd be crap at that.
Exactly. I think she made herself public a long time ago. I didn't like her then ,don't like her now, because I think she was no good at her last job, and hasn't displayed any expertise to me for this new one.jus' sayin'
-
Oh, and Kerry: Absolutely no disrespect taken. You put forward a contrary POV, and while I wasn't convinced it was thoughtful and cogently put.
aww, shucks.Thanks, hon.
you bet your sweet arse this well-fucked, alkie faggot never would, since only saints need apply.
Ha! cracked me up nicely at the end of a hard day at the books.
See, I'd rate you for public office over Rankin because you are open and you condemn intolerance and narrow minded guffery. You have integrity and she doesn't.
-
Laws' marital malfunction hasn't had anywhere near as much ink as his daughter's illness has it? Funny that.
starter for ten - he was babbling on Radio Live today (I know, I know, swimming in muck) about changing his will now that he's separated. For one ghastly moment I thought he was going to launch into an odorous expose of Life in Lawhsville, but no. Odds on, someone will.
-
dyan - epigenetics is highly controversial, unproven - indeed contested -work. It is not yet scientifically proven.
Hi Islander. You might wish to read this...
"Epigenetics" Means What We Eat, How We Live and Love, Alters How Our Genes Behave
By Duke Medicine News and Communications
DURHAM, N.C. -- A mother rat withholds nurturing licks from its pup and elicits a brain change that impairs the pup's response to stress as an adult, researchers in Canada found. A pregnant woman's dietary deficits increase her offspring's risk of diabetes, stroke and heart disease later in life, researchers in England have shown.
These startling scientific discoveries illuminate the emerging field of epigenetics, in which single nutrients, toxins, behaviors or environmental exposures of any sort can silence or activate a gene without altering its genetic code in any way.
The last two conferences I helped plan have dealt with (in part) epigenetics and obesity.
You might also be interested in this conference:
Developmental Biology Conference
Developmental Biology is at the center of the Life Sciences. Developmental biologists discovered inductive tissue interactions, thus creating the field of cell-cell signaling. Developmental biologists have uncovered the basic biological processes of embryogenesis and pattern formation, organogenesis, neurogenesis and sex determination, aging and cell death, cell and tissue polarity, and epigenetics.
In honor of the 40th anniversary of Lewis Wolpert’s Positional Information model, there will be a special session on Morphogen Gradients.
-
dyan - thanks for the links.
There is a huge lack of references on both sites- -
dyan - thanks for the links.
There is a huge lack of references on both sites-Bonjour Islander! It's a fascinating area of research.
The first link has no references as it is referring to a conference; the papers presented will have references, but not the site where you sign up to attend.
The second link is a news article from Duke, and if you really want to see refs, they are talking about Prof Barker (obesity and ancestral health) and Prof Meany (foetal rats) and their work is easily googled. Both men have been speakers at the Liggins Institute's excellent lecture series. Epigenetics is a new and emerging field, and like all new fields everything is contentious.
Barker and Meany - and Gluckman (with his "camel" hypothesis) - have all made well documented contributions to the field.
If you look at the Liggins Institute, you will see epigenetics and agriculture are already working in tandem.
As Peter Gluckman says "Considering that animal genetics only account for around 20% of the variability in populations, and that the other 80% is shaped by DNA that is not inherited and in all probability epigenetic, there is a lot that we have yet to explore - but with this agreement we are one step closer."
My favourite quote is from the rat guy, whose work is mentioned in the Duke article - I think they are talking about the Canadian Prof. Meany who says "when people ask which is more influential, nature or nurture? I ask them what has more influence on the area of a rectangle: length or width?"
-
<from the herald>
Guilty verdict - Mason caseWTF is this about
Mason's lawyer Liz Bulger wrapped up by saying her client was trying to discipline his boys after an earlier bike crash in a busy part of town.
She appealed to the jury members who are parents to remember what it is like to control toddlers..
maybe you don't take toddlers riding their bikes in a busy part of town
-
@Paul - I think if you want to enact a ceremony and call it "marriage", you should go to it. However, I just wish the legalities were separate and explicitly contractual.
The reason I want "mix and match" contracts is that I might want to easily designate one person as a guardian of my children, while granting another power-of-attorney of my finances. You can do that kind of thing now, but it costs a heck of a lot.
-
Sorry long post back to the threadjack.
Hi DyanMy apologies for misunderstanding you. I’m afraid I’m still a bit confused about what you are saying. It was not my intention to misquote you I genuinely am not sure what you are trying to say.
I am very much in support of use of GM technology in medicine and the pursuit of GM science. What I object to is the lack of independent scientific research in GM. Companies like Monsanto using the word "science" when they really mean "technology" or "industry".
I’m not sure what lack you are referring to. There is a huge amount of research (which we believe is science) around all aspects of GM. How to do it, how to do it differently, how to do things people haven’t done before, what the effects are on: existing crops; existing environments; previously present ecologies. You seem to have read some sources so I’m not sure how you could have missed the scale of the research that is going on. You may be implying that it is not independent of companies but that just is not true.
Yes there is a shit load of “development” of products but there is also a lot of pure science as well.
and the message from every discipline [snip] the message is "caution."
Um yes but the other half of the message is very clear as well. Thus far none of those disciplines has come up with anything they can demonstrate as being dangerous about GE. The people are all smart enough to know that unexpected things happen and hence they all want testing and monitoring. But people in all those fields all say there is nothing inherently unsafe about GE (as far as we know now – what we don’t know is of course unknown).
Regarding your quote from the meeting. There is lots on that to talk about but I’ll just make two comments.
Re: science for profit.
Over the last two decades in NZ (and many other places) there has become an established dogma that science can me “managed” to produce wealth (profit). This despite all evidence from the history of science that it is NOT possible to manage science to produce wealth. Personally I believe it is a pile of bullshit designed to allow MBAs to steal science funding so they can sit in meetings.
Science does produce wealth for countries/businesses etc but only when the science is directed by quality and not by managers.
Over the last two decades in NZ there is no evidence that “managing” science has improved the wealth of NZ but it has reduced the amount of science being done. Which should piss of every taxpayer.
I will happily spend hours discussing this but unless one can change the current administration of science it is a fruitless argument and my time is better spent doing the bench work.Re: world hunger is clearly a problem of distribution not production.
This is only true in the sense of maths. It is clearly not possible to change the behaviour of people to alter the unequal distribution of food. That has been tried for decades and has failed.
Hence my personal opinion is that we may as well try changing production efficiency – which we can do using a range of technologies of which one of the most important is GE, in my opinion.
By all means continue to try and resolve distribution issues but please don’t try and stop me trying to address the production side of the equation.We don't know what effect GM will have in generations to come …. GM has not been around long enough for us to predict the effects, much less assess them.
The above is true to a degree (see below) but it is still not a reason to stop using GE technology. It is only a reason to test and then monitor, nobody I know in science has any objection to testing and monitoring. Our objection is when the testing and monitoring is so ridiculously extreme that it becomes impossible to do the work.
However I would point out that GE has been around since 1983, I was personally making transgenic plants 20 years ago! And GE crops have been on sale since the early 1990s. How long do you want? And I would point out that we have pretty thoroughly assessed existing crops for everything we can think of, but not of course for things of which we cannot yet imagine.
-
Islander
epigenetics is highly controversial, unproven - indeed contested -work. It is not yet scientifically proven.
Epigenetics is proven. I'm not sure what part of it you have a problem with.
What has been shown multiple times in multiple labs is that information that is not in the DNA sequences present in the chromosomes can be transmitted to the progeny.
It isn't controversial. It was surprising at first but really it was mostly in the sense of "well doh!" why didn't we think of that before.
The short description of the most common form (that we know of yet) is that DNA becomes modified chemically (methylated) and that modification causes a change in the expression of one or more genes (usually turns them off). Because that change doesn't affect the DNA sequence it is called epi-genetic or outside the gene .
What was surprising and was hard to prove was that such changes could be transferred to progeny.
Now we know it's possible, there are several ways to change gene expression that are epi-genetic, some of which are inherited.
Heres two links to reviews, it is really cool science but a bit hard going
from a medical journal
and Science Daily -
Exactly, what does she bring to the role apart from a history of bigoted screaming on abuse issues and that she is a poster lady for the nostalgic newstalk generation who pine for a time when you could hit small children and smoke anywhere.
By that token can we expect to see D4J appointed to the family court any time soon?
what has more influence on the area of a rectangle: length or width?"
Simple, its the width.
If a rectangle with the dimension 100x10cm and reduce the length by 1cm the area becomes 990cm2 if you reduce the width by the same amount it becomes 900cm2
Therefore the width has a greater influence. -
That is a damn good rejoinder, sir.
-
"That is a damn good rejoinder, sir."
Only if you have prejudices about which orientation is natural...
-
Only if you have prejudices about which orientation is natural...
Length is always greater than width but has less influence. A natural conundrum?
-
Craig, I am unaware of Mallard ever pontificating about traditional family values.
Just making snide interjections about Don Brash's alleged extra-marital sex-capades while his own marriage wasn't exactly in mint condition. Which sounds pretty hypocritical to me, but you 'd pretty obviously beg to differ. The problem with goose sauce is that it gets all over everything...
-
Oh, and I do hope the Labour Party is completely over the neanderthal pseudo-chivalry as justification for common assault thing.
-
Just making snide interjections about Don Brash's alleged extra-marital sex-capades while his own marriage wasn't exactly in mint condition.
Fair point - I'd forgotten about that.
-
The problem with goose sauce is that it gets all over everything...
Another modern classic. PAS book of witticisms?
-
That is a damn good rejoinder, sir.
Someone draws their rectangles lying down.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.